Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Lady has mentioned a number of member states that have over-fished. The Commission has come down very hard on them and fined them. We welcome that, particularly in relation to the over-fishing of blue fin tuna. The Commission takes discards seriously; the commissioner has gone on record on this, and we are supporting him in this process. However, there will always be discards, because of the mixed nature of our fisheries. There are some fish for which there simply is not a market, and others will be below the minimum landing size. It is unacceptable, however, to discard high-value stocks such as cod—hon. Members will have seen pictures of such discarding on television—and we need to work harder to ensure that that does not happen. That involves a partnership between ourselves and the industry, and working with other member states.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to get a better picture of the total discards, and we have been working on that programme since 2002. It is important that we bring in measures to reduce the level of discards. All the European countries in the common fisheries policy have to discard fish, perhaps because they do not have quotas or because there is no market for some of the fish. What does one do with such fish? Either they are disposed of at sea, or an inshore infrastructure has to be put in place to dispose of them. This is a difficult issue, and we take it very seriously. As I have said, the commissioner also takes it seriously. We need to improve, and that involves working with the industry and bringing fishermen and scientists together, as we have done under the fisheries science partnership over the past five years. I hope that we will see a continued reduction. It is important to remember that the discards are an unintended consequence of quotas. We are not taking as many fish out of the sea as we once did. In 1987, 187,000 tonnes of cod were taken out of the sea; this year, the amount was less than 20,000.

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will know, DEFRA's budget is going to rise from £3.5 billion this year to £3.96 billion in 2010-11, which is a real terms increase of 1.4 per cent. a year. That is the first point. Secondly, where is that money going? One example is increased expenditure on flood defence. We were asked earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for an assurance that that money would come through and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment gave that assurance.
	We are investing more in low-carbon technologies, including through the environmental transformation fund, both at home and abroad—in response to earlier questions. In the end, action on climate change is not just about the amount of money that is spent by Government. It is about getting the right framework. In particular, it is about shifting the huge amounts of private sector investment in a low-carbon direction. That is why the Climate Change Bill is the most important contribution. There is also the climate change levy, which the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and his party have opposed; the energy efficiency commitment; the carbon reduction commitment, which will be part of the Climate Change Bill; and the carbon market and the EU emissions trading scheme, which is the best hope that we have when it comes to resulting in change in the direction that we all want—a significant reduction in carbon emissions.

Harriet Harman: The whole House should recognise and pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend, without whom that would not have happened. It was right that she brought the subject to the attention of the House and relevant Ministers and that she insisted and argued cogently that the efforts of the members of the women's land army should be recognised, just as those of the Bevin boys have been. Justice has been done because of her efforts, and I want to thank her.

Pete Wishart: May we have an early statement from the Home Secretary about her intention to renege on honouring the increased pay settlement in full? Perhaps she could honour the Scottish Government, who have made clear their intention to honour the commitment in full and pay the Scottish Police force what they are entitled to. Does that not contrast the difference between the two Governments and suggest why the Scottish National party is 11 points ahead of Labour in Scotland?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Modernisation Committee—[hon. Members: "Just say no."] I think I am probably saying no. The Modernisation Committee proposed that some Government time—we are not considering Opposition day debates—should be used to allow the Chamber to discuss issues of topical importance. The Committee suggested that that should be done through the usual channels, although the debates were to be an opportunity for Back Benchers. The Government gave their response and we passed Standing Order No. 24A, which simply provides that the topic will be chosen by the Leader of the House. I issued a written ministerial statement to outline my criteria for subjects for the debates. They are: the subject should be topical; the House has not had an opportunity to debate it; it is a matter of public policy; it is a matter of public concern, and it is of international, national or regional importance.
	It is early days. We have had only three topical debates. We need to reflect on the matter in the new year in light of our experience of the debates, and ascertain whether we need to change the process and the Standing Orders.
	However, one of my concerns is that the topical debates are supposed to be Back-Bench debates but, because Front Benchers make so many interventions and have many interesting things to say, many Back-Bench colleagues have not been able to speak in the important debates. I therefore want to consider how we ensure that there is more time for Back Benchers in the topical debates.

Clive Betts: I welcome many aspects of the overall settlement. Although it is tighter than the settlements in most recent years, it is clearly better than anything local government used to get during the 18 years when the Conservatives were in power. May I ask a specific question about my own city of Sheffield? I understand that its grant increase will be only about half that of neighbouring authorities in south Yorkshire. Sheffield has areas that are just as deprived as those in neighbouring authorities, including places such as Darnall in my constituency. The problem is that we also have areas such as Sheffield, Hallam, whose affluence raises the overall average for Sheffield, so people in the deprived parts of the city do not get the resources needed to meet their specific problems.

Simon Hughes: I associate myself and my colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches with the motion on the Order Paper and the tributes already paid to the Serjeant at Arms. I checked the chronology, as one does, and found that the Deputy Leader of the House was right to say that the post of Serjeant at Arms goes back to 1415. There have been 38 known holders of the post, of whom this Serjeant is the last. When he took over three years ago, there had been almost 590 years of the Serjeant at Arms doing jobs for the Speaker and the House of Commons. If ever there was job that one would expect to be different at the end from the start, that must be it.
	Peter Grant Peterkin came to what some people have described as being a slightly different role for somebody who was a major-general—in fact, it is more like being a sergeant-major. That is what the House clearly needs in some respects. It needs somebody who is, on the one hand, chief housekeeper and, on the other, chief security officer—a combination of roles that he has fulfilled extremely well. It is a tribute to him that it is obvious from all the comments that he has been extremely popular with parliamentary colleagues who have worked with him, with his staff, who to a person were outside yesterday to salute him as his brought in the Mace on his last formal Wednesday supporting Mr. Speaker, and with the press. That must be a triple success that not all his predecessors secured.
	Colleagues have paid tribute to Peter Grant Peterkin's extremely eminent military service, after an academic career in which he got not just a first degree but a second degree, at the great northern university of Durham. He has a Scottish and English background and has not only served his regiment, the Queen's Own Highlanders, but has served in almost every part of the world where British forces have been deployed: Belize in Latin America, the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong in Asia, and Australia. Probably most eminently, after his period in command he served in Kosovo, as part of the important recent international task there. We pay tribute to him for that.
	I notice that, in Peter Grant Peterkin's  Who's Who entry, one of his preferred recreations is cleaning ditches—not something that I have ever seen in anybody's  Who's Who entry before. I sense that that might have been good training for a job that the Serjeant at Arms has to do all the time: mending fences. He did that well. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, as part of the great transformation over which Peter Grant Peterkin has presided, of which the most visible outward sign has been the new staff team who look after our visitors—they do their jobs extremely well and courteously and provide very good information—there have been many changes behind the scenes, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred. Some of those changes are not yet in the public domain. It has been a period of huge transition, but he will be the last Serjeant to preside over a significantly large staff. I understand that there are about 400 people in the present Department, whereas the person who replaces Peter Grant Peterkin will have only about 40 people under their direct command.
	As we pay tribute to Peter Grant Peterkin and wish him and his family all the very best for the future, we ought to observe that the old order changeth and giveth way to the new. The job of Serjeant at Arms will never the be the same again.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister for Public Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), would very much have liked to open this debate, but she is in Brussels representing the UK at an EU Council meeting.
	Alcohol has been part of human life for time immemorial, but our relationship with it has never been straightforward. In moderation, it can be a social lubricant and have health benefits, but in excess it can damage health and cause wider personal and social harm. The way in which alcohol is managed in a free society raises questions about the role of the state and about individual and family responsibility. Those are questions it is not always easy to grapple with, and views in the House will vary, across political lines.
	Levels of alcohol consumption depend on a number of factors, including affordability, social acceptability and availability, but evidence suggests that affordability and social acceptability play a more important role than availability. Consumption in the UK has grown steadily over the decades as we have become richer. In 1947 a bottle of whisky cost the equivalent of £50 today. When I was growing up, there was drink in the house only at Christmas and on special occasions, whereas nowadays many people drink regularly, even daily. Excess alcohol consumption can increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer. If we look at a graph of liver disease over the past 30 years, we see that the UK was near the bottom of the international league 30 years ago. In other countries liver disease has been falling, but in the UK it has been steadily rising. If trends are not reversed we will soon have more liver disease than France, which used to have the worst levels of liver disease in the world.
	Government action can make and has made a difference. Since our first alcohol harm reduction strategy was published in 2004, general levels of alcohol consumption have fallen, as has violent crime, which is often alcohol-related. The proportion of young people under 16 drinking has declined to the 1992 level.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not agree with that. Serving drunks is a serious matter, and it leads to increased violence. Some people have claimed that the new licensing laws have contributed to the problem. There is no evidence to support that. As I said earlier, the latest figures actually show a recent reversal in the long-term increase in alcohol consumption. Serious violent crime is down by 5 per cent. during the evening and at nights, and less serious wounding is down by 3 per cent. Accident and emergency departments have seen a 2 per cent. decrease in serious violence. I know from talking to the police in my own constituency of Exeter that the staggering of closing times for nightclubs has helped to reduce the problems associated with everyone pouring out on to the streets at the same time. Councils and the police are using are using their new powers, and I would urge them to use them more.
	We remain concerned, however, about the practice by shops and supermarkets of deep discounting promotions, often as loss leaders, and at below cost price, of alcoholic products. We have therefore announced, as I said, an independent review of the evidence of the relationship between harm and the pricing and promotion of alcohol. Depending on the review's findings, which are expected next summer, we are prepared to change the law.

David Amess: Okay, I have listened to the Minister, but I am sick to death of strategies to get out of bed in the morning and go to bed at night. A strategy just gives advice—there is no legal enforcement behind it.
	Ministers have been coming under growing pressure to tackle the issues of underage and binge drinking, with claims that supermarket promotions mean that it can be cheaper to buy alcohol than water. There is no way in which the Government are going to take on the biggest supermarkets in the country—that is an absolute joke. This Government work hand in glove with the big supermarkets on every single issue: "Get your free tokens to get a computer"; "Work with the council and you get a new road put in." It is codswallop to say that they will take on the supermarkets—they will not.
	Last week, research for Ofsted suggested that a fifth of 10 to 15-year-olds regularly get drunk. That is the reality that the Government need to get wise to. We are talking about human beings. The House should be worried about this, or what is the point of being an MP? Certain supermarkets have been selling alcohol as cheaply as 22p a can, but the Government will not do anything about it—they will just say, "Isn't it dreadful?"
	Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, recently said:
	"We are seeing an alarming increase in people suffering serious liver problems as a result of alcohol. The United Kingdom is the only developed nation"—
	I say this to the Minister—
	"with a rising rate of liver disease."
	Why is that? We need an answer from the Government.

Don Foster: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Earlier, he made a fair point about the difficulty for people, perhaps especially those in smaller shops, who are left alone to do their job. We welcome the work of the chains, of which many small shops are members, and that of the organisations that the hon. Member for Selby mentioned, such as the British Beer and Pub Association, which set out codes of conduct and offer advice and support to people who work in such establishments. I acknowledge that things are not easy. I have already commented on the difficulty for the police of defining drunkenness. However, the figures that I cited show that there are problems with existing legislation not being fully implemented.
	It is critical to give our local authorities far more powers to tackle problems in their local communities. Our local authorities understand the difficulties presented by specific circumstances in their area. It is therefore especially disappointing that the Licensing Act 2003 and the guidance issued under section 182 leave local authorities without many of the powers that they would like in connection with cheap alcohol.
	Paragraph 10.38 of the guidance states:
	"Licensing authorities"—
	which are now local councils—
	"should not attach standardised blanket conditions promoting fixed prices for alcoholic drinks to premises licences or club licences or club premises certificates in an area as this is likely to breach competition law. It is also likely to be unlawful for licensing authorities or the police to promote generalised voluntary schemes or codes of practice in relation to price discounts on alcoholic drinks, 'happy hours' or drinks promotions."
	That takes a lot of the power to address the issue away from local authorities. What is bizarre, however, is the anomaly in paragraph 10.39, which says:
	"However, it is acceptable for licensing authorities to encourage adoption locally of voluntary industry codes of practice which cover irresponsible drinks promotions such as that produced by the British Beer and Pub Association".
	I fail to understand how it can be acceptable for a local authority to promote a code of practice that has been brought forward by an industry organisation, for example, but it is not possible for a local authority to promote a scheme in its area that it has brought forward itself.
	When I recently raised the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is responsible for licensing, he kept telling me that that was because of the Competition Act 1998, yet surely if a local authority accepts and promotes an industry code of practice, but the local authority next door does not do so, that is same problem as an authority with its own local scheme. I simply do not understand, so I hope that before we conclude, some hon. Member who contributes to this debate will shed some light on that peculiar anomaly, which prevents local authorities from having any real say in a key issue that affects so many authorities and the people who live within them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I want to emphasise to the Government that we need price control. There should be a minimum price level for all alcoholic drinks. I would like to see their price in supermarkets raised towards the level that pertains in public houses. That would help public houses and depress the sales of cheap alcohol.
	Apart from the supermarkets, another source of cheap alcohol is the vast ocean of it that is brought in from the continent of Europe. I should like to see tighter restrictions and lower levels of imports for personal use. A white van-load of beer is not for personal consumption; it is for selling illegally, usually off the record and in the poorer areas of Britain. People make vast sums of money out of doing that.
	I really want to talk about alcohol and health, particularly about an issue that I have successively raised in parliamentary questions and called for us to debate—foetal alcohol syndrome and the damage caused to babies before they are born because of their mother's drinking. There is a lot of evidence that the amount of damage caused by alcohol to babies when they are born is far and away above all the other birth defects put together. I am not talking only about serious foetal alcohol syndrome, but about rather lower levels of damage that can inhibit babies' intelligence, perhaps leading them to perform less well at school or to have behavioural problems.
	Although a great deal more research needs to be done, there is already considerable evidence that mothers' drinking is having serious effects on babies. It seems very unfair on pregnant women—I am pleased to see the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), on the Front Bench today—but it is a serious issue. Men do not suffer from the same problem, which is very unfair, but when women are seeking to become pregnant and during the early stages of pregnancy it is absolutely vital for them not to drink, because small foetuses do not have very large livers and they cannot cope with the alcohol. They are damaged by any alcohol that their mothers consume. There has been considerable obfuscation about this issue recently, perhaps deriving indirectly from the drinks industry, but the evidence is there.
	I want to see supermarkets reined in and the price of alcohol raised in them. We heard earlier about the level of alcohol in particular drinks, so why not directly relate the price and tax levels to the amount of alcohol in the drink? That would help us to overcome the problem, as there would no longer be an incentive to buy cheap, strong cider as opposed to beer. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) would no doubt benefit because beer sales would rise relative to those of cider.
	I wanted to raise several further points, but I am rapidly running out of time. One other important point is the cost of alcohol to the economy. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has estimated the cost of alcohol-related problems in Britain at about £20 billion a year—a vast sum of money, which we should be spending on things other than the effects of alcohol.
	I recently returned from a Select Committee visit to Washington in America. We were there for Hallowe'en and it was a real delight to see hundreds and thousands of young people in the streets in fancy dress; they were all completely sober because they are allowed to drink alcohol only when they are 21. That is rigidly enforced with fierce penalties for drunkenness. Anybody who looked vaguely in their mid-20s was checked before they went into a bar to be served alcohol. They take alcohol very seriously indeed in the USA. I do not necessarily admire everything America does, but it is right about that. I suspect there would be a riot if we tried to go as far as the Americans do in these matters, but we should move in that direction and take the problem more seriously. There and hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people in Britain who are suffering to some extent from alcohol problems. We ought to face those difficulties properly and not tinker at the edges, which is what we have been doing up till now.
	I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse for five years, and year after year we asked Ministers to bring forward their proposals for an alcohol strategy. However, year after year we were made promises that were not fulfilled. We are now starting to do something about it, but we are still taking it far too lightly. I think that we need to take much stronger action.
	I refer Ministers to the correspondence I recently received from Alcohol Concern—I will continue to correspond with the organisation—about the role of relative prices in respect of alcohol problems. I would like to see my Front-Bench colleagues take the issue more seriously and take action that is commensurate with the seriousness of the problem.

Michael Penning: May I state from the outset that a very sensible debate has taken place for the last hour or so? I would like to start with some comments on the contributions so far. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who brings a wealth of experience from his previous chairmanships. I, too, believe that there is an important debate to be had about the damage caused to foetuses from alcohol. That is so important that we should have a separate debate on it. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that an educational process needs to take place throughout the country, not least in pre-natal classes.
	The hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) defended the brewing industry fantastically well. Perhaps I should declare an interest at this stage in that I occasionally feel the need for the odd pint of Burton ale, even though my preference is for Guinness. I declare that interest at the outset. What concerns me slightly, however, is that the decline in pubs and pub sales is not just about beer but about what goes on in pubs. The sale of cider, for instance, is a bit of a fad at the moment and should not be addressed in the same way as the sale of beer.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whose letter, I believe, prompted the debate. I know that he raised this important issue at Prime Minister's Question Time the other day. If we are not careful, we will no longer have the great British pub where we can go and have a beer and enjoy a social life, which is very worrying. So many people come to this country and talk about our pubs, but a frightening number of pubs have closed over the past 20-odd years.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) brought a wealth of knowledge to a typically robust speech from his experience of representing a seaside town. Having lived in that seaside town for some 15 years myself and served as a fireman in the area, I can tell the House that the knowledge gained from living in a seaside town outranks any other. Southend needs day trippers, but I think it wants to keep only some of them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby— [Interruption.] I apologise. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) now represents the all-party parliamentary beer group. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) represented it for many years, but clearly the hon. Gentleman has ousted him. That event must have been a sight for sore eyes. I understand that the hon. Gentleman represents the beer group very well. Apparently I am a member of it, although no one told me.  [Interruption.] That is quite nice; I shall be along later.
	I meant to refer not to the hon. Member for Selby but to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has a wealth of experience in the retail industry and defends his position very well, although I disagreed with most of what he said.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made some extremely important points, not least in defending his figures to the Minister but also in making it clear that if we really want localism—which, I think, is the way politics has to go in this country—we must respect the elected local representatives and trust them to run their areas in the way they feel is appropriate. It was right to give them more powers to look after licensing and invoke what local people want.
	Having declared my personal interest in the odd pint, I think it important to add that social, sensible, safe drinking is part of the British culture and something that we want to encourage and keep going. I fully recognise the danger that the minority will spoil things for the majority, but we must not underestimate the damage to the nation's health that is caused by alcohol. Although I agreed with much of what the Minister said, I believe that the Government are sending mixed messages. One example is, of course, the legislation allowing 24-hour licensing.
	As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central pointed out, very few public houses allow 24-hour drinking—only 460, I believe. However, plenty of off-sales establishments open for 24 hours a day, and the problems that that causes have been raised. A new fad has developed in drinking. I have observed it for myself when I have been out on patrol with my local police, and, sadly, I have seen the results in local accident and emergency departments, as well as in the A and E departments around the country that I have visited in my new capacity.
	The practice is commonly called pre-loading. Young people aged 18, 24 or 30 get half-cut before they go out, and they do it on very cheap alcohol. One of the excuses is that when they reach the pubs and clubs they find the alcohol very expensive. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned the £10 litre bottle of vodka. Shortly before the debate started, I asked in the Library what the duty and VAT on that would be. The answer was £9.31. Someone is losing an awful lot of money, and I do not believe it is the distillers, because they tell me that they are not. Somewhere along the line, there is an encouragement to sell alcohol very cheaply. In what are often large supermarkets that are open very late there is an encouragement not just to sell booze cheaply—the supermarkets would go bust very quickly if that were the case—but to get the footfall in the store and to encourage people to purchase other products while they are there; this is a loss-leading practice. While it is not for any Government to tell Tesco, Asda or Sainsbury's how to run their supermarkets, they have a moral responsibility to this country, and selling alcohol so cheaply—sometimes, sadly, to under-age people—is morally wrong.
	The cost to this country is not just to do with fashion, or some of our town centres being no-go areas at night, or our pubs changing. There is also the cost to the NHS and the cost to the health of the people of our country. The estimated current cost to the NHS of alcohol misuse is £1.7 billion, while at the same time we have hospitals and accident and emergency departments around the country closing. How much better could that money be spent within the NHS?
	Sadly, last year some 4,000 children—under-16 year olds—were treated for alcohol misuse. Those Members who go out on patrol in their constituencies with the police will have seen those children. They are the same age as many of our children. I went along with the police recently and they found a young lady lying on the local village cricket green. She was lying next to a bottle of vodka and several bottles of alcopops. There was no one else in sight because they had seen the police coming, but she was out of her brains so they left her. It was very dark, and if we had not seen her she would have lain there throughout the night unconscious from alcohol, and if she had vomited she would almost certainly have died. That shows that this is such a serious issue that we cannot just leave it alone and say, "This has nothing to do with Parliament and Government." It is a fundamental role of this House and Government to do something about that. Violent crime is a matter that all Members have experienced in their constituencies. It one of the subjects that people come to my surgery to talk to me about the most; it is one of the biggest worries of my constituents. Half of violent crime is alcohol-related.
	May I defend some of the staff in the pubs and clubs of this country? According to the figures I have, 83 per cent. of assaults on bar and club staff are the result of their having said, "No"—that is, they are the result of them having done their job. I completely agree with Members who have said that the way forward is for the penalties for those trying to purchase alcohol in such circumstances to be as great, if not greater, than for those who sell it, because that is a big problem. Those who buy alcohol covertly for others, and those parents—I say this as a parent—who happily let their children go off to parties with half a bottle of vodka, should think about that; they should think about the damage they do to their families and the future of this country, because we know that addiction to alcohol often leads to addiction to other things.
	I therefore urge the Government to examine their drug strategy. Drug strategy units do fantastic work, but every time I visit one of them anywhere in the country the people who work there say to me that they cannot do their job without help from the Government to address the alcohol problems in the country. We cannot address drugs in isolation. We must deal with drink and drugs together, educate the community, and give the necessary powers to the people who are doing the work for us, so that we have a better society to live in.

Jonathan R Shaw: Members of the EU cannot pick and mix their policies. They cannot say, "We'll be part of this but not part of that." Signing up to the EU means signing up to all of its policies, so leaving the CFP would mean leaving the EU. However, as long as there is a UK Government, we will work with our partners and allies to develop a new CFP with much more effective regional councils. To achieve that, all member states must work together.
	We must not try to manage fisheries in isolation. We are bringing forward proposals for a marine Bill that will give us the modern, streamlined, forward-looking management framework that we need if we are to achieve sustainable marine development. The proposed legislation will streamline regulation and make our marine laws more effective. It will provide the better, smarter, clearer regulation that fits with the Government's broader policies of good regulation.
	The integrated package of measures in the marine Bill will include proposals for a system of marine planning, as well as stronger arrangements for protecting marine nature and a streamlining of the process by which marine works such as wind farms are licensed. The Bill will also set out proposals to reform the sea fisheries committees and make them responsible for inshore fisheries management. The reform will be underpinned by a shift towards an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.
	In short, the Bill will provide much better co-ordination between the management of new systems and those already in place, with a stronger focus on sustaining our marine resources.
	About two thirds of the fish that we eat is imported—a fact referred to by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill)—so we have a responsibility to contribute to the sustainability of fisheries globally. We are therefore leading global efforts to stop illegal fishing, which is a major threat to the sustainable management of fish stocks, and to biodiversity. It also threatens the livelihoods and basic food supplies of coastal communities. Illegal fishing is valued at $1 billion a year in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), and I are working closely with businesses to address environmental issues and develop work on those concerns.
	The work on illegal fishing follows on from the very good progress made by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who was an excellent fisheries Minister for a number of years. He championed that cause in his role as chair of the high seas task force. As the UK leads on the issue, I highlighted the importance of addressing the problem at the recent ministerial meeting on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Lisbon. I underlined the important role of UK fisheries, and retail and processing companies, that are developing systems to trace food from trawl to plate. In the European Commission we are championing seamless systems, such as those used by Young's Bluecrest in Grimsby, so that minimal regulatory burdens are created when we regulate to prevent illegal fish imports.

Bill Wiggin: If he is, how come he has not been given a job, despite doing that for 10 years? Is it not the case that nobody believes what the Labour party says about fishing any more? Part of the hon. Gentleman's problem is that he has been going up and down the country telling people that Labour care about angling, when the reality is that it does not. I shall finish my bit on angling and tell him why he and his party have failed sea anglers so badly.
	In the foreword to "Labour's Charter for Angling", the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), paid
	"tribute to the close working relationship between Labour politicians and the world of angling."
	He went on to comment that the Labour Government would be committed to the bass management plan, saying
	"It was anglers' concern for the conservation status of sea bass that has persuaded me to agree to implement much of the excellent bass management plan put forward by the Bass Anglers Sport Fishing Society."
	In the introduction, the hon. Member for Reading, West wrote:
	"angling representatives have direct access to government ministers and a voice in policy making. Labour has demonstrated by word and action that we are the most pro-angling political party in Britain."
	What rubbish.
	What actions have the Labour Government delivered to sea anglers? The reforms proposed in "Net Benefits" to
	"review the evidence supporting arguments for re-designating commercially caught species for wholly recreational sea angling beginning with bass by the end of 2004"
	were not developed. On bass specifically, Labour promised a minimum landing size, and it got the entire sea angling community's hopes up, including those of the hon. Member for Reading, West, only to disappoint them by postponing their plans at the last minute, completing the U-turn a few weeks ago.
	Labour was so focused on introducing a minimum landing size that it was blinded to the other measures, such as netting restrictions and bass nursery areas, which the Minister is now claiming to be reviewing. Had DEFRA taken a comprehensive approach from the start—I hope that this helps the Minister—then, despite backtracking on the minimum landing size, other measures may have been implemented by now to protect bass stocks. Instead, sea anglers continue to be let down by Labour.
	"Net Benefits" offered sea anglers hope with sentiments such as:
	"Fisheries management policy should recognise that sea angling may, in some circumstances, provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation."
	Little progress was made on that and little is likely to be made with the new RSA strategy, which does little more than echo sentiments expressed previously about minimum landing sizes, protected areas and management plans. With its slowness to implement proposals and its discreditable handling of the bass minimum landing size, is it any wonder that DEFRA is the byword for incompetence?

Stephen Ladyman: I have just heard the most extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). To summarise, he seemed to be saying, "Here's the problem. The Government must sort it out, but I'm not going to commit to saying whether I would sort it out if I were in government. On the one hand, the Government should do this, and on the other hand, they should do that, but I'm not going to choose between the two." I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman's conversion to Liberal Democracy is imminent.
	I want to take a few minutes of the House's time to talk about the under-10 m fleet and, in particular, the under-10 m fleet that sails from Ramsgate, in my constituency. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. I should also like to thank him for taking the trouble to come to Ramsgate to listen to the fishermen in the under-10 m fleet there. They were very pleased with his visit, and they have asked me to congratulate him on being frank with them. They did not like what he had to say, but they appreciated the fact that he said it to their face and did not try to gloss over the difficult problems that he faces.
	The fishermen's problem is that the allocation of fish that they are permitted to catch is insufficient to allow their industry to remain sustainable. They face ruin, and they expect action to be taken to deal with that. Quite simply, they do not believe that a sufficient quota is being allocated to the under-10 m fleet, and they are looking to the Government to do something about it. They are also looking for a much greater focus on their problems. They want a seat at the table.
	I pay tribute to Mr. Tom Brown, the secretary of the Thanet Fishermen's Association, who has represented Thanet fishermen in negotiations for many years and tried to get their point across. Over the past 10 years, he has also made sure that I was familiar with the problems that they face. He has validly pointed out that certain decisions were taken in the 1970s about how fishing would be managed as an industry. The producer organisations were set up effectively to promote and improve the fishing industry, but they were also given responsibility for negotiating on behalf of their members— the people who sail the larger over-10 m vessels that are part of those producer organisations. They have done a very good job of negotiating on their behalf, but because they have negotiated so well, the needs of the under-10 m fleet have been completely ignored.
	I would like the Minister to undertake a complete review of the way in which the under-10 m fleet is consulted on issues surrounding quota—how the quota is going to be distributed and how the licences are going to be deployed. The producer organisations are more than just consulted: they have a seat at the table; they are players in the game. Those involved with the under-10 m fleet may be able to make their views known through advisory committees, but they are not players in the game—they are spectators—and until that changes, their needs will not be sufficiently taken into account.
	It is my clear view that the allocation of quota to the under-10 m fleet is wrong. It seems to me that the division between the under-10 m and over-10 m vessels is an arbitrary one, as the Minister will probably acknowledge, but the distribution of the quota between the two sectors is equally arbitrary. Over the years, errors in how the quota has been managed have compounded the problems faced by the under-10 m sector, and it is now quite clear that its quota is inadequate.
	My second suggestion to the Minister therefore is that he needs to grasp that nettle and get some quota on a permanent basis to increase the amount of fishing that the under-10 m fleet is allowed to engage in. In addition to the permanent transfer of some quota, we need a review of whether the under-10 m fleet should be allowed to buy additional quota for itself. Perhaps they should be able to form consortiums and go out and buy some extra quota, which could be restricted to the people involved in purchasing it. Will the Minister think more about that as a possible way forward?
	The Minister would be the first to accept that there are far too many vessels in the under-10 m fleet. There has been no—or very little—rationalisation of it over the years. He discussed figures with several MPs the other day, which showed that a great many of the under-10 m fleet are not fishing to capacity; they are not even catching all the fish that they are licensed to catch. Many are dilettante fishermen or hobby fishermen, and some perhaps work only part time.
	I agree with the Minister that he should examine how the fleet is structured and he may need to look into the possibility of removing some people in the under-10 m fleet from commercial fishing. If he does, may I ask him to focus on the needs of those who are making their living out of it? Those who are trying to create and build businesses and who want to provide a sustainable industry with sustainable employment for local communities are the people to whom most of the quota should be allocated. They are the ones who should be allowed to fish at a level that allows them to make a living. Will the Minister also look into ways to help those people market their product or find other ways in which the Government can help us to create fish markets in very attractive locations such as Ramsgate harbour? That would be very popular, and it would help people who catch fish locally to get a good price for them.
	There are several ways in which the Minister can help the under-10 m fleet. He can transfer some extra quota; he can make sure that the sector is listened to in the future; he can help it market the product better; and he can help distribute whatever quota is granted to people who make a living out of fishing. Those things would make a major improvement in the sustainability of the under-10 m fleet. They will not be easy to do. I do not relish the task ahead of the Minister, but I am quite sure that he is up to it.

Martin Salter: I was pleased to contribute to last year's fisheries debate and remind the House that fisheries are not just the preserve of the commercial sector, but provide the resource on which recreational angling depends. I welcome the opportunity—admittedly, I have only a few minutes—to update hon. Members on developments in freshwater fisheries. I particularly want to highlight the work of the fisheries section of the Environment Agency. I also want to draw Members' attention to the work of the Anglers' Conservation Association, of which I am a member; I declare that interest.
	I welcome the Minister to his first fisheries debate. I was delighted that he made a number of references to the importance of recreational angling; that point was replicated across the Chamber. Being fisheries Minister is not easy; after all, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), said:
	"if you are a Fisheries Minister you sit around the table arguing about fishermen, not about fish. You are there to represent fishermen, you are there to ensure that if there are ten fish left you get your share and, if possible, a bit more. The arguments are not about conservation"—
	wise words from a politician who has scars on his back as a result of having done the job. I wish the Minister well, and if he is short of bedtime reading during the Christmas holidays, I heartily recommend "End of the Line" by Charles Clover—a fairly apocalyptic snapshot of the state of the ocean's fisheries in particular.
	I turn briefly to the work of the Environment Agency. Hon. Members will be aware that it is the lead body for protecting and improving the freshwater environment. Not only does it regulate, enforce and prosecute the users and abusers of our waterways, but it is charged with increasing participation in angling.
	I hope that the Minister has had the opportunity to read two important documents from the agency. The first, "Our Nation's Fisheries", gives a useful snapshot of the state of freshwater stocks. The overall picture is reasonably encouraging, but behind the generalisations there are serious concerns. Coarse fish numbers are increasing in many of our rivers. In the most recent survey, fish were present at more than 98 per cent. of sites and 50 per cent. of sites contained eight or more species. That is a big improvement on a decade ago, when many more rivers were grossly polluted and their fish communities were restricted to a few or a couple of species. However, salmon stocks have been seriously depleted, and stocks of multi-sea winter fish particularly so. In 2002, 70 per cent. of rivers failed to meet their conservation limit, and 46 per cent. achieved less than half the limit. As the Minister will be aware, the news is not all bad. Salmon stocks on some previously polluted rivers, including the Tyne, the Tees and rivers of the south Wales valleys, have recovered dramatically. However, there is no cause for complacency.
	I hope that the Minister has also had the opportunity to look at "Fishing for the Future", the angling participation strategy produced by the Environment Agency. The agency draws attention to its new statutory obligation to maintain, improve and develop salmon and freshwater fisheries. It has a participation target, which aims to deliver an extra 100,000 anglers by 2010. In the past three years, it has exceeded that target. Licence sales have risen and angling is doing well under Labour; we are catching bigger and more fish—at least I am.
	However—here is the rub—there is the issue of DEFRA grant in aid, which I raised in DEFRA questions earlier. A properly funded fisheries budget for the Environment Agency is crucial. I urge the Minister to consider what has happened to the ratio between funding for EA fisheries work delivered through the rod licence income and that delivered through grant in aid. In 1995, 44 per cent. of the total budget came from grant in aid and 52 per cent. from rod licence income. Now, 29 per cent. of the budget is delivered through grant in aid and 68 per cent. through rod licence income. Contrast that with navigation, where grant in aid has increased from £8.3 million in 2004-05 to £13.3 million in 2006-07. It is clearly unfair for the increased burden to be borne by rod licence holders.
	I wish to turn to the excellent work of the Anglers Conservation Association. Not all that is done to protect our rivers, streams and canals is done by the Environment Agency—anglers have been putting their hands in their pockets for years. The ACA was established in 1948, backed with funds of just £200. Three years later, it forced a city corporation to spend £1.8 million, worth £30 million at today's prices, on a new sewage works to prevent pollution. This year alone, it has settled 30 legal cases concerning pollution with sewage, pesticides, sediment, fertiliser and slurry. It has lost only three cases in its 60-year history, and just this week successfully negotiated £500,000 in compensation from Thames Water for its disgraceful pollution of the beautiful River Wandle, London's only chalk stream within the boundary of the M25. I wish the ACA well; it is a great shame that only about 10,000 of Britain's 2.5 million freshwater anglers are members.
	Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the constituent parts of recreational angling—the National Federation of Anglers, the Specialist Anglers Alliance, the Salmon and Trout Association, the ACA and the Association of Rivers Trusts—have finally come together to provide a united voice for angling. It is important that angling, as a guardian of the waterways, is able to punch its weight in this place and elsewhere.

Joan Ryan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rail services to my constituency of Enfield, North. There are four sections of line serving the constituency. Apart from the loop line from King's Cross and Moorgate to Hertford and Stevenage, which has a suburban service operated by First Group—serving stations at Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill and Crews Hill—all the other sections of railway are part of the Liverpool Street to West Anglia routes with stopping services operated by One. That has three sections of line in Enfield: the Enfield town line; the Southbury and Turkey Street loop to Cheshunt; and the West Anglia main line, which not only carries the Stansted express and through-trains to east Anglia, but provides local trains serving Brimsdown, Ponders End and Enfield Lock.
	I refer to these services as essential because, unlike the situation in many other parts of north London, there are no rail alternatives for commuters from Enfield, North. The underground does not extend as far as Enfield, North and road transport into central London is barely an option, because of congestion, travelling time and the obvious environmental issues associated with heavy road traffic.
	Until 2004, the train service through my constituency was operated by West Anglia Great Northern—WAGN. In 2004, One Railway, a member of the National Express Group plc, won the franchise for lines on eastern side of Enfield North, while in 2006, First Capital Connect took over the franchise for the western routes. Under WAGN's control, my constituents frequently experience delays, cancellations and severe overcrowding on their trains, with very little passenger information provided and stations very much in need of refurbishment.
	Where are we today? Perhaps I can start with an overview of the King's Cross-Moorgate-Hertford line. The main problem facing the loop line is capacity on the trains, and there are two main causes. The train lengths do not cope well with the recent and continuing growth in passenger use, including an expected 14 per cent. increase in passengers up to 2016, yet the Moorgate branch is limited to some six coaches. There is also a timetabling problem in going towards London that limits the ability to run more trains, as there only two inbound tracks between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park for all high-speed outer suburban and inner suburban services—instead of the three tracks in the direction away from London. Problems are also caused by a lack of track access.
	West Anglia is one of the most severely pressurised rail corridors in the country, supporting a busy suburban network in north London, Essex and Hertfordshire as well as express services to Stansted airport and East Anglia. It serves one of the fastest growing regions in the UK, including the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth corridor, and the existing track struggles to cope with the travel demand. That can only get worse with an exceptionally high growth in passenger usage of 37 per cent. forecast by Network Rail by 2016. For the most part, the railways forming the West Anglia route network have just two tracks—one in each direction, with a short four-track section between Hackney Downs and Bethnal Green, but only two tracks into Liverpool Street.
	In outer London, the West Anglia mainline timetable is a compromise between passenger demand and operability, which means having to mix fast and slow trains on the same track. Current services are susceptible to major delays for some very minor problems. This week, for example, a broken down train at Cheshunt in the morning peak led to a suspension of service and major disruption for thousands of commuters. If Network Rail proceeds with four-tracking, as proposed in its strategic business plan, such disruption and delay need not occur. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that.
	I welcome the Government's commitment to creating a rail network that provides a fast, reliable and efficient service, particularly for inter-urban journeys. I know that more than £10 billion will be invested in enhancing capacity between 2009 and 1014, with overall Government support for the railway totalling over £15 billion, and I know that that represents a higher level of investment than existed in 2004-09 with a lower level of public expenditure. I welcome that degree of commitment to improving our railways. However, as the Minister knows—we have exchanged correspondence, he has been very helpful in discussions with me, and I know that he is pursuing the point further—I am concerned about the fact that the investment is not being translated into tangible benefits for my constituents who use the One Railway services.
	I have already outlined the major problems, but according to the Office of Rail Regulation, One Railway received a £2.9 million subsidy for 2006-07, which appears to translate into only 0.1p per passenger kilometre. That seems very low in comparison with other rail operator subsidies. Moreover, it is a premium service, and One Railway will have to start paying money back to the Government rather than receiving a subsidy. In the light of that, I wonder about its bid. If the problems that I have described exist now, how is the position to improve with a lower level of subsidy, when the company has to start paying that money back to the Government? While I approve of the overall principle in relation to premium services, I am very concerned about that particular service, and about the One Railway franchise on the basis of its bid.
	My postbag is regularly full of letters from angry and frustrated constituents who are fed up with the poor train service that they are experiencing. I therefore conducted a survey to gauge the most up-to-date views of local commuters and hear what they had to say about our local rail services. Over the past week I have been inundated with replies, and they are still pouring in. I thank all my constituents who took the time and trouble to complete the questionnaire. So far about 15 per cent. of people have responded, which I think everyone would agree is a high level of response, and which, unfortunately, demonstrates the level of dissatisfaction. I also thank a number of groups in my constituency—Enfield Disability Action, Enfield transport users group and the Enfield Lock action group—and councillors Chris Bond, Toby Simon, Geoff Robinson and Del Goddard for their ongoing work and support in seeking improvements in our rail service in Enfield.
	According to the findings of my survey so far, most Enfield commuters recognise that some improvements have been made by One Railway and First Capital Connect. First Capital Connect has told me that it is
	"committed to providing customers with the best service"
	that it can provide, and believes that it has made "real and tangible progress" in tackling issues such as performance, punctuality and quality of service. We have seen some improvements to both Enfield Chase and Gordon Hill stations, but as they were in a pretty poor state of repair originally, we started from a very low base. I believe that further improvements are planned for all three stations over the next few years, and very necessary and welcome they will be. As I have said, rolling stock is a problem: we need longer trains.
	When One Railway took on the franchise for the Great Eastern line, it aimed to make improvements to the timetable and upgrades to stations and rolling stock. It made a commitment to invest £11.3 million in station improvements on the overall lines, with 50 of the 250 stations to be upgraded within 18 months. One Railway asserts that the Lee Valley area, which includes Enfield, has seen
	"a vast improvement in services".
	However, that too was from a very low base, and it must be said that most of the correspondence I receive about rail services in Enfield concerns One Railway. Yes, I receive complaints about First Capital Connect, but the vast majority are about One Railway, and they are often much more serious complaints.
	Improvements across both services are a step in the right direction, but a major problem that is still experienced on both networks, but particularly on the One Railway service, is delays and cancellations. According to my survey, all rail users in Enfield complain of delays and cancellations, but particularly users at Enfield Chase on the First Capital Connect line, and Enfield Lock, Turkey Street and Brimsdown on the One railway line. Constituents tell me that trains are often withdrawn without any explanation, sometimes hours in advance, and the public are not even informed. In fact, One Railway has told me that there were 22 cancellations in the space of just four weeks in September and October this year.
	Delays are particularly problematic during the peak-time service from Ponders End into London Liverpool Street station, which constituents tell me is often late four days a week. Meanwhile, on the Turkey Street and Southbury line, constituents have noted daily delays—interspersed with cancellations—of 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and on several occasions half an hour. On the First Capital Connect service, the 9.14 at Enfield Chase is late on an almost daily basis and regularly cancelled—which in fact means that it often flies through the station without stopping, which is incredibly frustrating for constituents, presumably because it wants to make a target time at its point of destination. This happens at peak time for services.
	Understandably, these problems continue to cause regular, and sometimes serious, overcrowding on the trains. We already have a capacity problem, and the running late and the not stopping make it worse. This is an issue which 73 per cent. of people I surveyed in Enfield said they often experience—a figure which is simply too high. While there have been some additional trains to Enfield Lock to help address some of this problem—as I have said, only four-tracking will ultimately resolve this issue—those using Brimsdown station are particularly affected by overcrowding, as there have been no additional stopping trains along that part of the line.
	Indeed, in the survey results that I have collated to date, 90 per cent. of commuters said they often experience overcrowding at Brimsdown station. With over 200,000 passenger journeys through Brimsdown, this is a very serious matter indeed. An increase in residential development on the former industrial sites in the Brimsdown area, and up the eastern side of Enfield generally, has meant that more people need to use the train service. One Railway must meet that demand. More commuters mean more money for One Railway, and we want to see improved services as an absolute priority.
	First Capital Connect has told me that it is working to maintain what it considers to be "exceptional" punctuality and reliability on the route, while One has told me that its main priority is to maintain the improved performance of the service. My constituents feel they are being taken for a ride—but not a ride on a clean reliable service that runs to time. Many Enfield residents using these services are regularly late for work and other engagements, which simply is not good enough. We have also had problems with changing timetables, and huge amounts of pressure has had to be applied by local groups and people to get reasonable timetables reinstated. Sometimes in peak running times a whole hour will pass without a train, which is totally unacceptable.
	Another problem brought to my attention is customer service at some of our local stations. While conducting my survey, I was at Enfield Lock station just two Fridays ago from 7.30 through until 9 o'clock. There was only one member of staff issuing tickets. The ticket machine was not working, which I understand is a regular occurrence. There was a huge queue of people wanting tickets, stretching out of the station. The train comes in, and their choice is either to get on the train without a ticket or miss the train. A large number of them regularly miss their train for that reason, which is unacceptable.
	I understand that First Capital Connect is planning to reduce staffing at Enfield Chase station and three other stations on the line. At present, we have one full-time and one part-time member of staff at Enfield Chase, and two ticket windows open during peak times. The plan is to get rid of the part-time job, so we will have one ticket window open. Already in peak time the queue often goes out of the station and on to the pavement—which means a queue of roughly six, 10 or 12 people. It would be completely unacceptable for one ticket window to close because the number of staff was reduced. Train operating companies tell us that they are trying to improve customer service, but this is a peculiar way of doing that. People who live around Enfield Chase and use the stations on the line will be outraged at this shameful decision, and I urge First Capital Connect to rethink it.
	As I have said, the state of the rolling stock is also a concern. I understand that First Capital Connect is refreshing its entire fleet of trains, and that is most welcome. I am not sure when it will happen, so a little further information would be helpful. I believe that there are also plans to replace rolling stock on the West Anglia routes. I ask that the local stopping services be given the new trains rather than just the older fast through trains. It is not the fast through service alone that should be given the new trains, because that would be unfair and unacceptable—although that is what seems to happen. We should not be second-class citizens in terms of our trains and travel, simply because we use a local service and the fast through trains presumably provide more of the income.
	The lack of access for people with mobility impairment is another issue that needs to be addressed. The Enfield Disability Action group has described spontaneous travel by rail as "impossible". Of the nine stations situation in my constituency, only three are accessible—the other six all have steps up to the platform. Disabled people who wish to use the train service are required to notify the train operator 24 hours in advance of their journey, because often no staff are on site to assist—that is true even where there are no stairs. It is wrong that disabled rail users face that situation, and the issue must be addressed.
	Obviously, I cannot cover every issue today. I have tried to put both the positive case and my constituents' problems. I think that the Minister would have to agree that there are many problems and that the solutions are a long time coming down the line. I want to mention safety, because I am regularly informed by rail users that CCTV at stations is not working. As I have mentioned, stations are often not staffed and constituents have told me that there is also a persistent problem of yobbish behaviour on the trains. I am pleased at the work that the British Transport police are doing with our train operating companies. We would benefit from that being stepped up.
	I ask the Minister and the Government to share our determination, and to call on First Capital Connect and One Railway to fulfil their commitment to delivering real improvements for their customers and for the people of Enfield, who have a right to expect that. I spoke out last year against the disproportionate rail and tube price hikes—in some cases there was a 30 per cent. increase—and the people in Enfield do not feel that they are getting a service that could possibly justify those increases. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these issues, and I must impress upon him that this is a serious problem, because the overground rail service is the main way in and out of Enfield for most people there.

Tom Harris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on securing this debate and providing us with an opportunity to discuss some important issues. I pay tribute to her for the huge amount of work that she has done on behalf of her constituents, who are also members of the travelling public. One example of that work is the survey that she mentioned. I am aware that she has had a surprisingly large response to it. The information that she has gathered will doubtless help her, and I hope that it will help me as the Minister responsible for rail services. If she wants to discuss any of the issues raised in the survey after this debate, I would be happy to do so.
	I am not sure that I will be able to address all the many important issues that my right hon. Friend raised. I will do my best in the time allotted to me, but if I am not able to cover them or she wishes to raise any other issue, I will be happy to meet her at a time convenient to both of us.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the doubling of track on part of the Lea valley line. She will know that consideration has already been given to doubling part of the track to provide additional capacity in relation to the extension of Stansted airport. Funding decisions for that work will have to await the outcome of the British Airports Authority inquiry into airport expansion, which will not happen until 2008.
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned franchise payments, an issue that she and I have discussed elsewhere. I do not accept the argument that a particular train operating company's performance should be judged according to the level of subsidy that it receives. There are many freight train operating companies that pay premiums rather than receive public subsidy, and there should be no difference in the level of service that those companies provide compared to those companies that receive a public subsidy. As it happens, One is committed to paying a premium over the length of its franchise. There are particular and anomalous reasons why it was given a subsidy of £2.9 million in the year that she mentions, the details of which I shall not go into tonight. It is an area for more discussion between us.
	In addition, my right hon. Friend talked about rolling stock allocation and made a powerful argument for new rolling stock on her lines. It is not appropriate for Ministers or civil servants at the Department for Transport to decide on every occasion which part of the new rolling stock procurement—which is being procured through the high-level output specification—should be allocated to which line. Those are decisions best taken by the TOCs themselves, and the rolling stock plan will be published in January in consultation with the train industry. The plan will give more detail about the allocation of the new rolling stock.
	My right hon. Friend talked about the problem of late trains not stopping at, and therefore not serving, stations in her constituency. TOCs have targets and are incentivised not to miss out particular stations. Such a service counts against the efficiency targets of the TOCs. I am happy to discuss that point further with her and with the managing directors of the companies that she mentioned.
	My right hon. Friend also talked about the importance of access to train stations, and that is crucial. She will know that the Government have launched an access for all strategy, which will make available £370 million in funding over 10 years to provide access arrangements for people who are incapacitated in some way. So far, 92 stations in England have been identified to receive part of that money and another tranche will be announced this month. I expect that right my right hon. Friend would welcome the inclusion of any of her stations in that. The method for identifying stations to receive access for all funding is based on the incidence of disability as identified in the 2001 census, weighted according to footfall. We try to ensure that we attend to the stations that most need that money.
	In terms of ticket offices, my right hon. Friend will be interested to learn that we have not had any request from First Capital Connect or One to reduce the number of hours that ticket offices remain open. It is a condition of the franchise agreement that requests for reducing the hours of ticket offices come to the Secretary of State.
	The First Capital Connect franchise commenced on 1 April 2006, bringing together the former Thameslink and Great Northern franchises. The franchise has a maximum length of nine years, but there are two points during the franchise term which could result in the franchise ending at an earlier point. I am aware that my right hon. Friend's constituency is served by First Capital Connect Great Northern services on the Hertford loop from Moorgate.
	Performance on First Capital Connect has improved consistently since the company started operation and the franchise has also delivered all its commitments up to this point. The latest period for which complete performance data are available shows that First Capital Connect achieved a public performance measure—the industry standard measure—of a moving annual average of trains arriving on time of 88.69 per cent. That represents a 1.78 per cent. improvement on the joint performance improvement plan target agreed with Network Rail for the period. Overall in the year to date, First Capital Connect's public performance measure, or PPM, for the moving annual average is 0.77 per cent. better than the joint performance improvement plan.
	I would add that the previous eight weeks are traditionally difficult for the rail network because of leaf fall and the effect of leaves on the line, which causes a drop in performance throughout the country. In the railway period from 19 August to 15 September this year, First Capital Connect delivered 96.04 per cent. PPM on the Great Northern route, which represents the best PPM figure for the route since franchising began in the early 1990s.
	First Capital Connect's delay minute moving annual average has reduced from 11,344 delay minutes per period when the franchise started to 9,717 delay minutes. In addition, in 2007 First Capital Connect has delivered a 15 per cent. reduction in fleet failures and a 40 per cent. improvement in cancellations compared with 2006. The franchise agreement requires First Capital Connect to meet three performance benchmarks: cancellations, capacity and delay minutes. The train operating company has complied with all those in each railway period since the franchise began.
	As required in the franchise agreement, First Capital Connect has invested heavily since April 2006 to improve customer service, security and station quality. The Department for Transport has ensured that First Capital Connect has fulfilled its obligation to invest £16.1 million in the first year of its franchise. That includes £2.8 million on improving the quality of stations by refurbishing waiting rooms and toilets, installing new waiting shelters and repainting many of the stations that it operates.
	I am aware that Enfield, North is also served by the One franchise. The franchise finishes on 31 March 2011. There is a continuation review period that runs from November 2008 to November 2009. If One meets its performance targets during that period, the franchise is automatically extended to 31 March 2014. Performance on the franchise has improved since the franchise commenced and all franchise commitments have been delivered to date.
	I know that my right hon. Friend wanted me to address other issues and I apologise that, in the time left, I will not be able to cover them all. As I said at the beginning, I am more than happy to meet her to discuss some of the outstanding issues. Rail travel in the south-east is in a healthy state. There continues to be strong demand for travel in the region, much of it focused on movements to and from London, although increasingly the market is growing in urban areas away from the capital. As demand increases, capacity provision becomes a greater challenge. The Government are addressing that challenge by means of the policies I have outlined here and that were outlined when we published our high level output specification in July of this year. There has already been significant investment in new rolling stock and refurbishment programmes designed to provide a more appropriate environment for London commuters to travel to work.
	The Department for Transport remains committed to providing additional capacity, and supports the delivery of innovative and pragmatic solutions to address the issue. The off-peak business and leisure markets represent a huge opportunity for the railway to increase its market share, and this is promoted further by the congestion difficulties faced by road users in the region. As we have demonstrated through recent franchise awards, the franchise replacement process provides a good opportunity to bring about improvements to capacity, service provision and to ensure that the taxpayer receives good value for money.
	Having said all that, I take right my right hon. Friend's criticisms on board. The issues that she raised are extremely important to her and to her constituents. Ministers must never forget that the whole point of providing a railway service is not for politicians, or the media, but for passengers.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 4 December 2007: In column 803, in Division 022, insert "Spring, Mr. Richard" in the Noes.